| Literature DB >> 27625987 |
Markus Gschwind1, Martin Hardmeier2, Dimitri Van De Ville3, Miralena I Tomescu4, Iris-Katharina Penner5, Yvonne Naegelin2, Peter Fuhr2, Christoph M Michel6, Margitta Seeck1.
Abstract
Spontaneous fluctuations of neuronal activity in large-scale distributed networks are a hallmark of the resting brain. In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) several fMRI studies have suggested altered resting-state connectivity patterns. Topographical EEG analysis reveals much faster temporal fluctuations in the tens of milliseconds time range (termed "microstates"), which showed altered properties in a number of neuropsychiatric conditions. We investigated whether these microstates were altered in patients with RRMS, and if the microstates' temporal properties reflected a link to the patients' clinical features. We acquired 256-channel EEG in 53 patients (mean age 37.6 years, 45 females, mean disease duration 9.99 years, Expanded Disability Status Scale ≤ 4, mean 2.2) and 49 healthy controls (mean age 36.4 years, 33 females). We analyzed segments of a total of 5 min of EEG during resting wakefulness and determined for both groups the four predominant microstates using established clustering methods. We found significant differences in the temporal dynamics of two of the four microstates between healthy controls and patients with RRMS in terms of increased appearance and prolonged duration. Using stepwise multiple linear regression models with 8-fold cross-validation, we found evidence that these electrophysiological measures predicted a patient's total disease duration, annual relapse rate, disability score, as well as depression score, and cognitive fatigue measure. In RRMS patients, microstate analysis captured altered fluctuations of EEG topographies in the sub-second range. This measure of high temporal resolution provided potentially powerful markers of disease activity and neuropsychiatric co-morbidities in RRMS.Entities:
Keywords: Annual relapse rate; Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; Disease duration; Expanded Disability Status Scale; Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions; High-density EEG; Microstates; Topographical EEG analysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27625987 PMCID: PMC5011177 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2016.08.008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Demographics (mean and standard deviation).
| Patients | Controls | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 53 | N = 49 | |||
| Females/males | 45/8 | 33/16 | ||
| Age [y] | 37.69 | ± 7.10 | 36.35 | ± 8.20 |
| Education [y] | 14.64 | ± 2.69 | 15.27 | ± 2.22 |
| Disease duration [y] | 9.99 | ± 6.09 | ||
| Annualized relapse rate (2y-ARR) | 0.58 | ± 0.68 | ||
| Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) | 2.12 | ± 0.97 | ||
| Kurtzke Functional System Score – visual (FSS-vis) | 0.32 | ± 0.83 | ||
| Kurtzke Functional System Score – mental (FSS-ment) | 0.91 | ± 0.84 | ||
For detailed patient specification, see Supplementary Table 1.
For detailed patient specification, see Supplementary Table 1.
Fig. 1Method of microstate analysis. A. The patient's high-density EEG (256 channels) at rest (eyes closed), after standard preprocessing, is displayed as a time series of global field topographies, showing quasi-stable periods between irregular changes (B.). C. The peaks of global field power (GFP) were determined and their specific topographies were selected and submitted to a k-means clustering procedure, for each individual participant, and in a second step across all participants (D.). E. This resulted in a set of four most representative topographies for all participants in both groups equally, the four microstate classes. Only the topography's relative configuration but not its polarity is considered. These four template topographies are then fitted back to the original EEG recording of each individual participant resulting in a labelling of the whole recording according to predominating microstate class. G. The resulting fine-grained time sequence of the labels is called the microstate sequence and used for statistical analysis.
Results of the neuropsychological assessment of patients with RRMS and healthy controls.
| Patients | Controls | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
| Laterality Index of Handedness | 88.44 ± 15.70 | 88.94 ± 17.37 | 0.88 |
| SDMT | 55.88 ± 10.78 | 63.60 ± 11.49 | |
| FSMC-cog | 24.62 ± 11.42 | 15.56 ± 4.45 | |
| FSMC-mot | 25.79 ± 11.46 | 15.98 ± 4.23 | |
| CES-D | 9.84 ± 8.98 | 6.21 ± 5.51 |
SDMT: Symbol Digit Modalities Test; FSMC-cog: cognitive sub-score of the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions; FSMC-mot: physical sub-score of the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions; CES-D: Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale.
Factorial analysis of clinical and neuropsychological characteristics of patients with RRMS.
| Component | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Variance explained (%) | 31.955 | 14.536 | 10.587 | 9.366 |
| Eigenvalues | 3.835 | 1.744 | 1.27 | 1.124 |
| FSMC-cog | 0.857 | |||
| FSMC-mot | 0.851 | |||
| FSS-ment | 0.800 | |||
| EDSS | 0.790 | |||
| FSS-vis | 0.608 | |||
| Age | 0.771 | |||
| 2y-ARR | − 0.766 | |||
| Disease duration | 0.697 | |||
| SDMT | − 0.721 | |||
| Sex | 0.674 | |||
| CES-D | 0.592 | |||
| Education years | 0.684 | |||
N = 53. Factor contribution > 0.5 taken into account. FSMC-cog: cognitive sub-score of the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions; FSMC-mot: physical sub-score of the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions; FSS-ment: Kurtzke Functional System Score – mental; EDSS: Expanded Disability Status Scale; FSS-vis: Kurtzke Functional System Score – visual; 2y-ARR: Annualized relapse rate; SDMT: Symbol Digit Modalities Test; CES-D: Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale.
Fig. 2Grand template topographies as results of the two-step k-means clustering for all (N = 102), and separately for patients with RRMS (N = 53) and healthy controls (N = 49).
Fig. 3Upper part: Results of microstate analysis separated for each microstate class A, B, C and D for patients with RRMS (red) and healthy controls (blue). The group mean and S.E.M.is shown. Lower part: The histogram of the durations of all 4 microstates (controls above, patients below) details the infra-second time resolution of the microstate temporal sequence. It shows a long right tail, here arbitrarily cut at 400 ms (note, that some rare durations may reach > 2000 ms). It shows differences between maps and between patients and controls as measured by the MANOVA. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 4The difference of probability of microstate duration between patients with RRMS and controls (delta) is shown for the four microstate classes. The delta is negative for durations < 120 ms for microstates classes A and B, indicating that patients display fewer short duration states, but it is positive for durations between 120 ms and 300 ms, indicating more longer durations in patients. This pattern is consistent with the patient's higher geomean and median in microstate class A and B. For classes C and D no such difference between patients and controls was found.
Stepwise linear regression models, on patient's clinical characteristics as target variables, reveal significant predictors from EEG microstate parametres.
| Target | Model | Predictor | R2 | Adj. R2 | β | sr | 8-fold cross-validation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S.E.est | R2 | Adj. R2 | ||||||||
| Disease duration | 1 | Median duration Class A | 0.000 | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.46 | 0.46 | |||
| 2 | Median duration Class A | 0.000 | 0.32 | 0.29 | 0.38 | 0.41 | 5.29 | 0.97 | 0.97 | |
| Age | 0.33 | 0.37 | ||||||||
| 2y-ARR | 1 | Age | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.08 | − 0.31 | − 0.31 | |||
| 2 | Age | 0.007 | 0.18 | 0.15 | − 0.32 | − 0.33 | 0.67 | 0.98 | 0.98 | |
| Geomean duration Class B | − 0.29 | − 0.30 | ||||||||
| CES-D | 1 | Geomean duration Class A | 0.009 | 0.13 | 0.11 | − 0.36 | − 0.36 | 8.70 | 0.89 | 0.89 |
| FSMC-cog | 1 | Median duration Class B | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.08 | − 31 | − 0.31 | 11.09 | 0.95 | 0.95 |
| EDSS | 1 | GEV Class A | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.94 | 0.97 | 0.97 |
*): Corrected for multiple comparisons using false discovery rate (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995), q-value = 0.03. Only data of patients were used N = 53. For the models SDMT and FSMC-mot, no predictor variables were selected by the stepwise procedure. 2y-ARR: 2-year annual relapse rate; CES-D: Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale FSMC-cog: cognitive subscore of the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions; EDSS: Expanded Disability Status Scale; GEV: global explained variance; sr: partial correlation; S.E.est.: Standard error of estimate.
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01.
p < 0.001.
Fig. 5Consistency measures for the established predictive models usign 8-fold cross-validation. Each figure compares the predicted model for all N = 53 patients to a model using the same predictor variables but calculated on 7 out of 8 folds only, each time leaving the remaining fold as unknown test set. This procedure is repeated 8 times on the 8 non overlapping folds, so that every patient was once a test case. All models (A.–E.) show a remarkably high coincidence with the predicting model for every of the 53 patients (R2 between 0.89 and 0.98). 2y-ARR: two-years annual relapse rate; EDSS: Expanded Disability Status Scale; CES-D: Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; FSMC-cog: cognitive subscore of the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions.